Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
So is Robert Maplethorpe’s work obscene?[/quote]
I would not consider it obscene unless it were displayed publicly. A large percentage of people consider it obscene to observe nudity, they did not seek it out so it is reasonable that they do not have it thrust upon them [/quote]
Not only was it displayed in public, it was paid for with public money.
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
“The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities”
Thank you for making my point for me. - obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/
[/quote]
We are getting close , I agree it is different culture to culture , but no we are on to what is common, meanning a broad consensus . that is all simple
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
So is Robert Maplethorpe’s work obscene?[/quote]
I would not consider it obscene unless it were displayed publicly. A large percentage of people consider it obscene to observe nudity, they did not seek it out so it is reasonable that they do not have it thrust upon them [/quote]
Not only was it displayed in public, it was paid for with public money.[/quote]
I would have to see all the specifics , I may totally agree with you
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
“The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities”
Thank you for making my point for me. - obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
We are getting close , I agree it is different culture to culture , but no we are on to what is common, meanning a broad consensus . that is all simple [/quote]
The point is what one person views as acceptable, another finds obscene. It’s like tryin to nail jell-o to a wall, commen sense has nothing to do with it.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
“The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities”
Thank you for making my point for me. - obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
We are getting close , I agree it is different culture to culture , but no we are on to what is common, meanning a broad consensus . that is all simple [/quote]
The point is what one person views as acceptable, another finds obscene. It’s like tryin to nail jell-o to a wall, commen sense has nothing to do with it.[/quote]
it is all about common sense, what you are claiming is like saying Murder has no definition and that all killing be a a germ or self defense , like Murder it has a definition not subject to individual interpretation
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
“The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities”
Thank you for making my point for me. - obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.
[/quote]
We are getting close , I agree it is different culture to culture , but no we are on to what is common, meanning a broad consensus . that is all simple [/quote]
The point is what one person views as acceptable, another finds obscene. It’s like tryin to nail jell-o to a wall, commen sense has nothing to do with it.[/quote]
it is all about common sense, what you are claiming is like saying Murder has no definition and that all killing be a a germ or self defense , like Murder it has a definition not subject to individual interpretation [/quote]
Huh? With murder, you have the inconvenience of a dead body, then you have a trial to deduce is it was self-defence, 1st or 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, neglegent homocide, etc.
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
I didn’t see a useful definition there. When you have a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice essentially saying you cannot get an intelligible definition of hard-core pornography for the purpose of applying an obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, I think we should be able to agree that the concept of obscenity is pretty hard to nail down.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the majority of people would consider that lewd and indecent , that is a poor example
[/quote]
It’s a good example why we don’t need laws to protect us from indecency (or dancers). Most people already know this is not acceptable behavior and would not do it in the first place. If someone were to do it why couldn’t it just be prohibited voluntarily? For example, people who are offended can refuse to associate or to do business with these kind of people. That is a harsh punishment which can quickly correct bad behavior.
And with the use of social media there is no hiding from your sins.[/quote]
I totally agree.Government should not make laws prohibiting something as silly as dancing. Arbitrary laws are signs of a police state.
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
I didn’t see a useful definition there. When you have a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice essentially saying you cannot get an intelligible definition of hard-core pornography for the purpose of applying an obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, I think we should be able to agree that the concept of obscenity is pretty hard to nail down.
[/quote]
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the majority of people would consider that lewd and indecent , that is a poor example
[/quote]
It’s a good example why we don’t need laws to protect us from indecency (or dancers). Most people already know this is not acceptable behavior and would not do it in the first place. If someone were to do it why couldn’t it just be prohibited voluntarily? For example, people who are offended can refuse to associate or to do business with these kind of people. That is a harsh punishment which can quickly correct bad behavior.
And with the use of social media there is no hiding from your sins.[/quote]
I totally agree.Government should not make laws prohibiting something as silly as dancing. Arbitrary laws are signs of a police state.[/quote]
To my understanding there was NO LAW there might have been some arbitrary rule
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
I didn’t see a useful definition there. When you have a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice essentially saying you cannot get an intelligible definition of hard-core pornography for the purpose of applying an obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, I think we should be able to agree that the concept of obscenity is pretty hard to nail down.
[/quote]
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
I didn’t see a useful definition there. When you have a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice essentially saying you cannot get an intelligible definition of hard-core pornography for the purpose of applying an obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, I think we should be able to agree that the concept of obscenity is pretty hard to nail down.
[/quote]
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
True :)[/quote]
So now the issue becomes, “on who’s opinion do we base the law”?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
True :)[/quote]
So now the issue becomes, “on who’s opinion do we base the law”? [/quote]
Common means a consensus , you would have to poll the population, we ar4e talking reality, not some Republican Goat fuck
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
True :)[/quote]
So now the issue becomes, “on who’s opinion do we base the law”? [/quote]
Common means a consensus , you would have to poll the population, we ar4e talking reality, not some Republican Goat fuck [/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
True :)[/quote]
So now the issue becomes, “on who’s opinion do we base the law”? [/quote]
Common means a consensus , you would have to poll the population, we ar4e talking reality, not some Republican Goat fuck [/quote]
Ok, so whatever the majority votes for goes?
What kind of dog is in your avitar?[/quote]
Whatever the majority votes for goes can have the problem of 51% oppressing the other 49% of a society…which is the problem in a true democracy (I can’t think of a gov’t that operates this way in modern times).
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to disagree, it is not that it is hard to nail down the definition , it is just that it is an easy subject to demigogue .
I do not want to loose sight of the point I am arguing which is that the behavior shown in the original post was NOT obscene,
[/quote]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
True :)[/quote]
So now the issue becomes, “on who’s opinion do we base the law”? [/quote]
Common means a consensus , you would have to poll the population, we ar4e talking reality, not some Republican Goat fuck [/quote]
Ok, so whatever the majority votes for goes?
What kind of dog is in your avitar?[/quote]
Whatever the majority votes for goes can have the problem of 51% oppressing the other 49% of a society…which is the problem in a true democracy (I can’t think of a gov’t that operates this way in modern times).
[/quote]
^This^
I’m trying to get Pitbull to understand that:
a) Obscenity is an opinion and not a fact.
b) We cannot define it nationally by consensus.
c) Therfore, it must be handled at a local or state level allowinf those who don’t like the local standards can vote with their feet. Which cannot happen if it’s handled at a national level.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
or maybe Lifty